|
Post by hildebrand on Mar 22, 2021 15:38:47 GMT -5
I would like to bring up a Hof proposal, and I have already mentioned it to Nick, but its a group effort. I was thinking we should implement two rules: 1.If you have made it to the final 5, and get rejected, you cant be in the process next season. Cool down time. 2. if you have had 5 rejections (as a whole vote), on 5 different final 5 votes, you should be removed from the Hof field. My thinking towards this is that it is tiresome having to talk about the same guys over and over, and the likes of Banks and Cheuse have been rejected on multiple occasions now. I am almost certain Banks is around that 10 times mark. By continuing to talk about these guys, that will make the final 5, and always get a no, we arent looking at others in depth more. Evan brought up 3-4 guys that imo are possibly worthy, but we never talk about them. My problem with this is that we don't have a "veterans" committee. We don't have a separate set of players, who may be out of the league for 15+ seasons, that we can compare to each other for how they fared in the league at the time they played. The older guys still deserve consideration, but the league was different when they played so it's difficult to put them in the same conversation as the more recently retired. I don't think we need to remove players after they are denied a year, but I do agree there should be some ballot number limit before they are added to a separate "veterans" ballot.
|
|
|
Post by Joel on Mar 22, 2021 15:44:29 GMT -5
I would like to bring up a Hof proposal, and I have already mentioned it to Nick, but its a group effort. I was thinking we should implement two rules: 1.If you have made it to the final 5, and get rejected, you cant be in the process next season. Cool down time. 2. if you have had 5 rejections (as a whole vote), on 5 different final 5 votes, you should be removed from the Hof field. My thinking towards this is that it is tiresome having to talk about the same guys over and over, and the likes of Banks and Cheuse have been rejected on multiple occasions now. I am almost certain Banks is around that 10 times mark. By continuing to talk about these guys, that will make the final 5, and always get a no, we arent looking at others in depth more. Evan brought up 3-4 guys that imo are possibly worthy, but we never talk about them. My problem with this is that we don't have a "veterans" committee. We don't have a separate set of players, who may be out of the league for 15+ seasons, that we can compare to each other for how they fared in the league at the time they played. The older guys still deserve consideration, but the league was different when they played so it's difficult to put them in the same conversation as the more recently retired. I don't think we need to remove players after they are denied a year, but I do agree there should be some ballot number limit before they are added to a separate "veterans" ballot. Another part of my thought process is that we have ALWAYS said this HOF isn't a normal HOF, it is the best of the BEST. If you have been rejected 5 times, you clearly aren't best of the best. SO why talk about them anymore. Get rid of them, and spend that energy looking for someone else that is HOF worthy.
|
|
|
Post by hildebrand on Mar 22, 2021 15:53:24 GMT -5
My problem with this is that we don't have a "veterans" committee. We don't have a separate set of players, who may be out of the league for 15+ seasons, that we can compare to each other for how they fared in the league at the time they played. The older guys still deserve consideration, but the league was different when they played so it's difficult to put them in the same conversation as the more recently retired. I don't think we need to remove players after they are denied a year, but I do agree there should be some ballot number limit before they are added to a separate "veterans" ballot. Another part of my thought process is that we have ALWAYS said this HOF isn't a normal HOF, it is the best of the BEST. If you have been rejected 5 times, you clearly aren't best of the best. SO why talk about them anymore. Get rid of them, and spend that energy looking for someone else that is HOF worthy. I was thinking we have the normal ballot for anyone who's retired in the last 5 years. After the 5 year limit, if a player has been in the top 5 final vote at anytime without being inducted, they are all added to a separate larger ballot where we only vote for 1 player on the ballot to be inducted. Anyone earning 50% of the vote would be inducted as a veterans committee inductee.
|
|
|
Post by ManWithNoName on Mar 22, 2021 18:06:43 GMT -5
I like the idea of sidelining a guy after 5 times on the ballet. I probably would avoid overcomplicating it for now by adding things like a veterans committee or stopping us from considering a guy for back to back years.
I think right now this rule would only affect Banks and Cheuse. I might have added these up wrong or missed a year but I think the current numbers look like this:
QB Bridgewater 3 QB Delcorio 3 WR Davison 1 WR Samuels 2 WR Johnson 1 WR Beckham 1 WR Jeffery 1 TE Downs 1 TE Beysinger 1 G Fox 3 DE Blake 1 DE Hancock 1 LB Connell 1 CB Collins 1 CB Newhart 1 S Keeling 1 S Pryor 2
|
|
|
Post by CMax on Mar 23, 2021 6:16:12 GMT -5
Sorry if my Banks push was an irritant. This being my first season really digging into it, I hadn't realized that Banks was an oft discussed candidate prior to me jumping in. I obviously feel pretty strongly about his candidacy, but I'm happy to let it go in future seasons.
|
|
|
Post by rush27 on Mar 23, 2021 7:12:11 GMT -5
Sorry if my Banks push was an irritant. This being my first season really digging into it, I hadn't realized that Banks was an oft discussed candidate prior to me jumping in. I obviously feel pretty strongly about his candidacy, but I'm happy to let it go in future seasons. No need to apologise. We need guys in the HOF committee to push the players that they believe have a right to be in
|
|
|
Post by Joel on Mar 23, 2021 7:13:26 GMT -5
Sorry if my Banks push was an irritant. This being my first season really digging into it, I hadn't realized that Banks was an oft discussed candidate prior to me jumping in. I obviously feel pretty strongly about his candidacy, but I'm happy to let it go in future seasons. No need to apologise. We need guys in the HOF committee to push the players that they believe have a right to be in Yup, despite my fuss it’s great to have people involved that care
|
|
|
Post by ezlee2 on Mar 23, 2021 8:31:47 GMT -5
WR Dunn YES G Briggs YES S Banks NO QB Delcorio YES DT Cheuse NO
|
|
|
Post by ezlee2 on Mar 23, 2021 8:42:19 GMT -5
Considering the biases that go on here and the constant changing of what is important I personally feel that you keep them all in consideration. In fact, I would think the opposite way as if you make the top 5 in any year are automatically added to the list for consideration. That or have a legit vet process. I'm not going to debate it here, but I am going to speak my mind about Delcorio and the hypocrisy by Nick about what was/is important for QBs. For years we heard that QBR was king. That is encapsulated every important component of a QB. Then we hear that it's not that important of the main contributing factor which I agree with. Now we hear rumblings that rings are important now and not just stats (Marincic) However, Delcorio checks the boxes on the QBR. He is one of 5 that has a 100 career QBR rating. It would have been higher if not for his years as a backup. I don't think someone should be penalized for that. He retired as the #4 ranking TD passer (he's now #5) - How the hell is he not a HOFer? This is all I have to say about Delcorio for fear that I'll be scolded for talking about one of my former players. I'm not going to argue about this (see Teddy) but I must point out the inconsistencies in the process. This is one of the main reasons why I'll always recognize the in-game HOF.
|
|
|
Post by Nick on Mar 23, 2021 11:08:15 GMT -5
I think a true HOFer at QB should be a clutch guy when it counts and not choke. Unfortunately it seems the Steelers seem to manufacture chokers.
Declorio is excellent, but we have to draw the line somewhere. You won't hear me fighting Hartman's corner to get in. He was a clutch player too. If a guy is good enough there is no need to debate, as per Dunn and Briggs. We all know they are.
|
|
|
Post by ManWithNoName on Mar 23, 2021 11:14:31 GMT -5
I think a true HOFer at QB should be a clutch guy when it counts and not choke. Unfortunately it seems the Steelers seem to manufacture chokers. Declorio is excellent, but we have to draw the line somewhere. You won't hear me fighting Hartman's corner to get in. He was a clutch player too. If a guy is good enough there is no need to debate, as per Dunn and Briggs. We all know they are. So, you will not be voting for Maricic then? I do agree that when you know, you know. Most of the guys in the Hall were pretty easy for us to put in there. Only a few really had much debate about them.
|
|
|
Post by Nick on Mar 23, 2021 11:22:54 GMT -5
I think a true HOFer at QB should be a clutch guy when it counts and not choke. Unfortunately it seems the Steelers seem to manufacture chokers. Declorio is excellent, but we have to draw the line somewhere. You won't hear me fighting Hartman's corner to get in. He was a clutch player too. If a guy is good enough there is no need to debate, as per Dunn and Briggs. We all know they are. So, you will not be voting for Maricic then? I do agree that when you know, you know. Most of the guys in the Hall were pretty easy for us to put in there. Only a few really had much debate about them. Delcorio regular season QBR: 100.5 Playoffs: 91.8 Rings 0 Hartman regular season QBR: 101.5 Playoffs: 108.5 Rings 4 Marincic regular season QBR: 108.8 Playoffs: 93.0 Rings 1 I mean we can see that the Steelers breed chokers, but I think Marincic has done more than Delcorio. IF things continue on the current path, I see Marincic as a HOFer. Just not 1st ballot. If he played as well in the playoffs as the regular season he would be easily a 1st ballot guy. But you can't just turn a blind eye to the choking IMO. Hartman is probably between the 2 all things considered, a bit of a system guy, but you have to love how clutch he was. Delcorio in 3rd for me.
|
|
|
Post by hildebrand on Mar 23, 2021 11:48:42 GMT -5
So, you will not be voting for Maricic then? I do agree that when you know, you know. Most of the guys in the Hall were pretty easy for us to put in there. Only a few really had much debate about them. Delcorio regular season QBR: 100.5 Playoffs: 91.8 Rings 0 Hartman regular season QBR: 101.5 Playoffs: 108.5 Rings 4 Marincic regular season QBR: 108.8 Playoffs: 93.0 Rings 1 I mean we can see that the Steelers breed chokers, but I think Marincic has done more than Delcorio. IF things continue on the current path, I see Marincic as a HOFer. Just not 1st ballot. If he played as well in the playoffs as the regular season he would be easily a 1st ballot guy. But you can't just turn a blind eye to the choking IMO. Hartman is probably between the 2 all things considered, a bit of a system guy, but you have to love how clutch he was. Delcorio in 3rd for me. I like how a 93 QBR is considered "choking." A 93 QBR is still a top 10 QB almost every year. Hartman benefitted from Seattle's overall team ability, so there was less pressure and focus on him while Delcorio and Marincic were the primary weapons for Pittsburgh. Seattle has been a more successful team than Pittsburgh in the playoffs, but I really doubt the difference in success is due to Hartman outperforming Marincic or Delcorio. Marincic missing the 1st ballot would be a joke. Easily in the top 2 QBs in league history. All the stats, all the awards, one ring and a 12-8 playoff record. I can understand a debate for Delcorio, but Marincic is a lock.
|
|
|
Post by Joel on Mar 23, 2021 11:55:03 GMT -5
I think we need to care less about QBR, it’s a manipulated stat the you can make high if you do the right things. A 100+ QBR to me doesn’t always mean a player was great, but a 90 QBR doesn’t mean a player wasn’t great...
|
|
|
Post by Nick on Mar 23, 2021 11:58:44 GMT -5
The Steelers normally have better receivers than we do, especially in the Marincic era. 90 odd is decent, but it is plain to see how much worse they both played in the playoffs. Where as Hartman got better. For me it shows the difference between a clutch player and a choker. But credit for Marincic's regular season play, I see him as a HOFer for that, even if Dunn and Benzer helped carry him to it.
|
|